Beware of telling people not to log online. The "purists" will complain that you have deprived the cache owner and other cachers of the pleasure of reading about your caching experience . And God forbid if you moved a travel bug and now its mileage is wrong because you didn't log it online . I suppose you could log notes instead of found it so your find count isn't affected. And notes won't show on the user stats page of your profiles as well.

This post has been edited by tozainamboku: 13 December 2005 - 09:46 PM

I guess I could just stop caching altogether -- then I wouldn't even HAVE stats -- how covert would that be!?

Okay -- I get that hiding stats isn't really that big of a deal -- the only time it "frosts my feathers" is when folks use MY stats as a measurement of THEIR activities (specifically, when folks want to dictate the administration of my stats by requesting controls).

It isn't a huge deal and I think having an audit log on stats might be too much over-kill anyhow.

The best analogy of what I would "like" to have would be the equivilent of a members-only stat page where I could control and/or at least see who was looking at my profile. Again -- over-kill?

We will be removing find counts from logs at some point, however. Instead there will be a little link beside a person's name so you can see what their hide/find count is.

Curious to know what the thinking is on this one.

I like the find stats next to a user. For example, let's say a cache has been DNF'd as the last two logs. If these were logs by couple of cachers with single digits finds that's very different from logs by cachers with three/four digit finds.

We will be removing find counts from logs at some point, however. Instead there will be a little link beside a person's name so you can see what their hide/find count is.

Curious to know what the thinking is on this one.

I like the find stats next to a user. For example, let's say a cache has been DNF'd as the last two logs. If these were logs by couple of cachers with single digits finds that's very different from logs by cachers with three/four digit finds.

As they say: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back.
The stats will still be there, just harder to access. I guess that might appease those who get so weird about their stats.

The stats will still be there, just harder to access. I guess that might appease those who get so weird about their stats.

How difficult is it to click and get a popup window?

It's not, I just don't understand the need to hide the stats if they're still only one click away.

Mushtang, on Dec 14 2005, 02:10 PM, said:

How about a mouse-over instead of a pop-up window? The stats could be revealed in the little yellow window if you roll your mouse over the user's name, or maybe a symbol beside their name.

A lot of us use pop-up blocker software to keep the ads to a minimum.

If we're going to hide them anyway, a mouse-over would be good.

Edit:Grammar

I think (and somebody correct me if I'm wrong) that there are database and sever load issues caused by that pointless little number. I seem recall that Jeremy has said this before but he failed to address it this time. Maybe he's tired of repeating himself? I expect that a mouseover would not resolve these issues.

I think it would be much more useful to record and display the number of finds the person had at the time they wrote the log. If I'm looking at a found, DNF, or note, it means something entirely different to me to know that they had only 5 finds at the time they wrote it six months ago, than it does to know that they have 300 finds today.

This historic information could be stored in the DB as part of the log itself, so there'd be no additional overhead to retrieve it.

I think (and somebody correct me if I'm wrong) that there are database and sever load issues caused by that pointless little number. I seem recall that Jeremy has said this before but he failed to address it this time. Maybe he's tired of repeating himself? I expect that a mouseover would not resolve these issues.

I'm sure there are. There are database and server load issues having to do with most features of the site; the trick is working out which ones are worth it. The server load could be reduced -- and the history of the cache better recorded -- if a user's numbers 'froze' at the point he logged the cache. I would consider that an enhancement, in fact -- the better to figure out my own history.

I think (and somebody correct me if I'm wrong) that there are database and sever load issues caused by that pointless little number. I seem recall that Jeremy has said this before but he failed to address it this time. Maybe he's tired of repeating himself? I expect that a mouseover would not resolve these issues.

Server load is the first good reason I've heard for not showing those valuable little numbers.

I like Auntie's solution, but wouldn't that only work if it had been that way from the beginning? I'm not a programmer, but I imagine it would be difficult after the fact to recreate that "Memorial Park" was my 37th cache find in July 2002.

The little linky to a popup stats infobox would, I think, help with server load. Once the linky is plopped onto the page, it is static because it links to the user's stats. The updating would take place on that other page.

Whatever the potential internal computational reasons for changing it to a link, it will certainly do its job at killing sites like Grand_High_Pobah who don't download enough pages currently to set off the bells-n-whistles of the anti-server-scraper bot, but ignore the TOS rule against scraping the pages for info.

As soon as they have to hit everyone's profile to get the info instead of a few dozen or so cache pages with that same info, they'll be done for. Can't wait for that day in the forums. Gratz, Jeremy! Another minor site, catering to a sub-population of cachers by doing what you refuse to provide, bites the dust!

I imagine your desk as having a series of Signal Head stickers, like a college football helmet or fighter plane nose section, for each little site you swat by altering the site UI for more obfuscation...do you make the gunnery sounds too when you update the code?

It makes it easy for folks to offer congratulations on reaching significant milestones or for user groups to give certificates or awards to folks for reaching 1,000 or 2,000 finds and such. I just never realized that anybody would care if others knew how many or how few finds they had. I don't mind that my count shows me as a n00b.

I just never realized that anybody would care if others knew how many or how few finds they had.

Near as I've ever been able to figure it, it's a way for long-time and/or high-find cachers to demonstrate what caching purists they are. Think of it as a kind of showing off what a showoff you're not: "Look, Ma! I'm not calling attention to myself!"

I just never realized that anybody would care if others knew how many or how few finds they had.

Near as I've ever been able to figure it, it's a way for long-time and/or high-find cachers to demonstrate what caching purists they are. Think of it as a kind of showing off what a showoff you're not: "Look, Ma! I'm not calling attention to myself!"

It's also amusing to me to notice that it's the cachers that claim numbers don't mean anything that seem to talk about the subject in the forums the most.

If you don't want to sound like a hypocrite why don't you change your Finds to Notes?

I'm guessing you'll never do that.

I don't think its the finding and logging that is the problem in this case. Its that any pesk can point to the numbers and claim they mean something the person logging them never intended (like holes dug? or some other crazy thing). The only person that needs to know their find count is the person that logged them. To them those numbers/smilies have a lot more meaning than someone trying to compare plain numbers later.

I don't think its the finding and logging that is the problem in this case.

It does to me. He made it clear that in his opinion a reward for logging online was a bad thing.

CoyoteRed, on Dec 14 2005, 09:41 PM, said:

A very good reason to remove any online reward for finding a cache.

Why log a Find if not for the fact that you'll get a "reward" of the website keeping track of your finds?

I don't read it that way at all. Logging does not always mean 'reward'.
The way smilies are used, its like dog treats. Do a good trick, get another bone. As I see it, the problem CR is pointing at is that some people see the public stats pages and apply their own trivial or corrupt meaning.

I can't say what CR gets from logging their finds. But personally I log finds as simple record keeping, not so it adds another number gets added on. I could keep an offline journal, but I don't really care to get into scrapebooking its just doesn't seem fun to me. I remember the really interesting cache adventures quite well, but the bland one gets blended up and lost in memory. If the site will keep track of my notes, should I not use it because it keeps track of the numbers of notes too?

I don't read it that way at all. Logging does not always mean 'reward'.

You're right, and I'm sure I might have read CRs post wrong. I apologize to CR if that's not what he meant.

But there have been other posts in the past that were a lot clearer, and the poster was saying that numbers were bad and should be eliminated from the site. Every time I read these comments it seems to come from someone that clearly enjoys their stats elsewhere (like on their profiles).

welch, on Dec 15 2005, 11:09 AM, said:

If the site will keep track of my notes, should I not use it because it keeps track of the numbers of notes too?

Nobody can see how many notes you've posted, so the whole issue of numbers comparison is gone, but no information is missing from the cache page. Other cachers can read that you've found it, and you can still comment on your hunt and the condition of the cache if need be.

Actually, I believe what it actually shows is we learned early on that numbers aren't all that important after all. Consider that we stopped keeping track what's what after 200 finds, you'll note the logged finds are over 700, then one might infer that we don't care about any miles stones. That banner was placed on out profile shortly after they became available.

BTW, if anyone had been paying attention we did remove the stats page from our personal home page.

Also, consider the number of caches we've found and not logged. Since the implementation of the ignore list we've been able to ignore caches to get them off our list even if we actually fount them!*

There was a recent "gift" that popped up a few miles from home. One day I happened by, picked up the lamp post skirt, pulled the nano from it's spot, promptly put it back, and when I got home put on my ignore list.

Of course, I could have made it official by opening it up and signing the log, but to what end? It's not the type of cache I want to encourage. Apparently my feelings are mirrored by the vast majority of the other locals as well.

Would a smilie hound do that? I think not.

So tell me again how I'm a hypocrite?

*For the locals, there are no caches on our ignore list placed by a local.

Consider that we stopped keeping track what's what after 200 finds, you'll note the logged finds are over 700, then one might infer that we don't care about any miles stones.

Or one might infer that it's all sanctimonious posturing, since you clearly know what your logged count is, which milestones you observed and when you stopped observing them. People who don't care about the numbers don't care about the numbers. People whose disdain for the numbers is loud and frequent and in everyone's face clearly care very much about the numbers, just not in a nice way.

Actually, I believe what it actually shows is we learned early on that numbers aren't all that important after all. Consider ... bs...bs...bs.... That banner was placed on out profile shortly after they became available.

Okay, I guess I was right the first time I posted, and actually did assume correctly what you meant. Apology retracted.

So if the banner was placed shortly after it was made available, why is it still there I wonder? Could it be that you're actually proud of the numbers? Or maybe you just forgot?

Quote

Also, consider the number of caches we've found and not logged. Since the implementation of the ignore list we've been able to ignore caches to get them off our list even if we actually fount them!*

Great. So why do you ever log a Find? How is that better for you than a note?

Quote

Of course, I could have made it official by opening it up and signing the log, but to what end? ... bs... bs... bs... Would a smilie hound do that? I think not.

No, someone that enjoyed their numbers would have signed the log and logged a Find online. They would have made mention of the cache and future finders that didn't like those types would have known not to bother. Sounds like a good reason to at least leave a note to me. But since you're so pious and you're looking out for the other cachers in your area that feel the same way you do, you've left that job to someone else. Maybe they got there and thought to themselves, "I hate these things. If only CR had warned me, I would have had a much better day".

Quote

So tell me again how I'm a hypocrite?

Okay, one more time, by request:

Every time I see someone bash find numbers, or smileys, or numbers, etc., I check their profiles to see what they're doing instead of logging their finds.

Almost every time (including this one) the person's profiles discuss how many finds they have, and they keep logging their finds online.

...or you might infer that we woke up and found out there is much more to geocaching than how many we can find.

Additionally, one might infer we woke up to the negative effects chasing milestone has on the hobby.

If anyone thinks the landscape of the geocaching world wouldn't be any different if there had never been a total of the find logs then you're living in a fantasy world.

We shed our blinders. I wish more would do the same.

Again with that tired old stuff?

Your posts on this subject can be all be reduced to "I cache my way, everyone that caches differently is wrong, they should all be like me, those that don't cache like me aren't enjoying themselves as much as I am, when other people wake up and do things the way I do then I'll be happier."

So why do you ever log a Find? How is that better for you than a note?

Why do you think?

When I find a cache that I feel is worth the effort to log online I use the mechanism available to me to make an accurate entry. Wow, what a concept. Okay, let's see. If I found the cache, then I would think "Found It" would fit the bill. Pretty darn easy.

But that's not what you meant is it?

Even with all of your postering, you are the one who is trying to dictate how others are playing the game. No? Then why do you say I should be logging notes instead? Hmmm?

Even then that doesn't get to the root of the issue now does it? I'm talking Found It log totals and the effect it has on how folks play the game.

Yes, I push for folks to play the game differently. No, I'm not pushing for folks to play the game my way. (Otherwise, I'd be pushing for more puzzles and longer hikes.) I would think someone with any intelligence could see the difference.

I see something wrong with the way some folks pursue the hobby and I want to correct it. But I suppose you'd not see a problem with a decaying carcass virt, code word caches, or an Old Shoe cache. After all, why infringe on the way folks want to play their game. Right?

If the site will keep track of my notes, should I not use it because it keeps track of the numbers of notes too?

Nobody can see how many notes you've posted, so the whole issue of numbers comparison is gone, but no information is missing from the cache page. Other cachers can read that you've found it, and you can still comment on your hunt and the condition of the cache if need be.

Actually anyone can find out the number of their notes (and NA and DNF, etc on your 'my cache' page). But thats not important, and I don't really care about those numbers either. When I said notes I meant like field notes, not the actual log type, that was a mistake on my part.
Yes, I could log things only as note type logs, but that wouldn't let me use the site's features like I want. Finds, not note are used to determine that nearest 'unfound'. If I wanted to manually keep track of every cache, I would do that scrapebook thing, which I already said I didn't care to.

When I find a cache that I feel is worth the effort to log online I use the mechanism available to me to make an accurate entry. Wow, what a concept.

Except you don't care about numbers right? So why does it matter that the entry is accurate? Wow, what a concept.

Quote

But that's not what you meant is it?

No.

Quote

Even with all of your postering, you are the one who is trying to dictate how others are playing the game.

No.

Quote

No? Then why do you say I should be logging notes instead? Hmmm?

To ask you to put your money where your mouth is. It's a way to point out that what you say is different than what you do. I'm not saying that everyone should log with notes at all. I enjoy seeing how many Finds other people have. But when you (and a few others) go on and on about how numbers don't matter and how the find count is evil, I challenge you to back it up and get rid of yours.

I don't actually think you'll ever do it though.

Quote

Even then that doesn't get to the root of the issue now does it? I'm talking Found It log totals and the effect it has on how folks play the game.

If you know what you've found, and you feel that a smiley (or an increase in your Find count) is an online reward that you'd like to have removed, then I would think that you would have wanted to remove yours. But you have a Found It log total too. You even display it proudly on your profile. Interesting.

Quote

No, I'm not pushing for folks to play the game my way.

Quote

I see something wrong with the way some folks pursue the hobby and I want to correct it.

So... um... huh? You want to correct the way that people play the game... but not to play it your way? So you're correcting people and suggesting they play it someone elses way?

I would think someone with any intelligence could see the hypocracy.

Quote

But I suppose you'd not see a problem with a decaying carcass virt, code word caches, or an Old Shoe cache. After all, why infringe on the way folks want to play their game. Right?

I've found lots of lame caches and didn't know they were lame until I got there and found them (I liked the code word caches I found, but I won't get into why in this post). Should I insist that caches be of a certain level of creativeness before it be allowed on the site? If so, then who decides that level? I hope you're not put in charge of it.

But what does the quality of the cache have to do with someone's found totals being displayed or not? That's what we were talking about.

So I guess the answer to my original question is "no -- there isn't any easy way to hide my stats or track whom is looking at them"

Thanks!

(the reason I wanted to hide my stats is that I just don't feel the need to "share" them. Maybe I'm not a nice guy? ) I'm a big fan of greater personal control/responsibilty and less external control/judgement.

No big deal really. Sorry for starting another thread that turns into a "Do stats matter?" topic.